There is plenty of temperature data available from Greenland, but NOAA has made it disappear from their analysis, as has NASA.

They have good reason for this. Temperatures in southwest Greenland are plummeting, and are colder now than during the 1970s. The plot below is made from the NOAA GHCN database – data they pretend they don’t have.

The amount of ice in Baffin Bay has sharply increased since 2010, and is now fully recovered to 1979 levels.

I took these pictures of Baffin Bay in late June. There was still huge amounts of ice.

Satellite data shows that 2010 was much warmer that 2015 globally. Satellite data covers almost all of the planet, so it doesn’t produce the gross errors which NASA and NOAA do with their surface data.

Greenland has gone missing, because it wrecks the NOAA/NASA climate scam.

126 Responses to Why NASA And NOAA Made Greenland Disappear

And why would one not suspect that this just an example of what is their standard operating procedure these days. Any location with anonymously cold temps that would ruin their on going hottest ever theme must be altered or failing that omitted from the database.

And people wonder why or even defend the fact that NOAA has defied congress and the law by refusing to hand over their internal communications as if their workers have some kind of executive privilege?

Still I won’t hold my breath that they will comply with the law so the tax payers who fund them can find out the truth about that agencies internal activities. Based on the recent record there is absolutely no reason to believe any agency or department of this administration will follow the law and that this congress has the will, desire, or ability to make them do so.

I now just automatically assume that if NOAA or NASA says it, it must be a lie. I know people that have worked for both agencies and with minimal prompting, they have told me that those agencies are highly politicized and rotten to the core.

I think there are some darn good dedicated people working there but the bosses and and a significant element are totally politically controlled. They don’t have to destroy or eliminate the good ones. They can just move them to other jobs so they can’t interfere with the fraud.

As of the 1999 field season, 18 automatic weather stations (AWS) are collecting climate information on Greenland’s ice sheet. Each AWS is equipped with a number of instruments to sample the following: …http://cires1.colorado.edu/steffen/gcnet/

But as I’ve posting, I don’t expect to read about it in the “Mainstream” press.

What I don’t understand is, there’s no data for Greenland on the land only map, but there is on the land & ocean map.
Does that mean the land & ocean map data (for land) is based on ocean data?
I can’t find a link to the ocean only map.

Martin, are you that stupid? That is what NOAA CREATED — after their interpolation and extrapolation computer games of the original data (from which there are no such data)! What you’re looking at, NOAA did not record. Your image is of what they made up for Greenland. SHEESH!

No, R. it doesn’t. If you read the abstract of the study, nowhere does it say that 2C is a tipping point. The news article makes the same claim you agree with, but that isn’t evidence that climate scientists claim that 2C is a tipping point. The actual claim is that we should set 2C as the upper limit for AGW so we can AVOID hitting a tipping point. IOW, staying below 2C will allow the world to avoid the tipping point.

The IPCC uses that number as far as when they think harm will outweigh benefits. Of course, there is no global increase in droughts, floods the rate of SL rise etc…. so far we have only benefits, as in one billion more people eating due to the increase in CO2, the IPCC is propaganda disguised as science..

Martin Smith says:
November 22, 2015 at 1:27 pm
I don’t think so, David. We are already seeing harm.
====
Martin, can you describe to me exactly what harm?
…and how global warming does that without affecting temperature?

We are NOT seeing any harmful benefits linked to atmospheric CO2, because there has been no warming that can be linked to CO2.

The only harm is from the agenda response to the non-issue of “climate change”.
That response is causing unnecessary economic waste throughout the world, leading to hardship for poor people in the western world and stopping 3rd world countries from getting the electrical power that they so desperately need to develop. Its sickening to watch.

There have been massive benefits in food supply and biosphere enhancement though.

I understand that Karl, but the two datasets merged together allow for skillful infilling. However, we now know that GISS decided to publish the result for October before receiving temperature data from Greenland. The data will be updated when that data arrives. It may have arrived already.

And the US. Snowing here in central Indiana right now and were under a Winter Weather Advisory until 19:00. Accuweather forecast calls for “near record” low temp for tonight of 15 deg. F. and this front coming down from the top of the globe is heading east.

In my part of the world it seems like generally winter is coming later but lasting later also despite the fact that this snow comes before the traditional start of winter though we are forecast to have temps up into the 50s by Thursday this week once this blast passes.

2010 was also the time of a powerful El Nino, that lasted basically the entire year and kind of shifted the entire NP graph backwards by 5 years, but the general cooling trend after the shift remained almost identical.
That’s really interesting, because we had the period of solar maximum, in 2014 and beginning of this year, which seems to have had no important influence on the cooling of the NP.
I believe it is still a bit early to say if the present El Nino will or not have any impact on the NP temps.

Interesting graphs, AndyG, thanks.
As expected the AMO follows this trend very closely,
with a strong peak in 2010 and falling steadily after that.
2010 is the peak of the AMO for the present positive phase of the oscillation.
The more I look the more I’m convinced that the AMO will probably shift to negative before the end of this decade.

Cold times seem to be coming for the N. Hemisphere during the later half of this decade.

But the alarmists can still take heart because there will probably be some pretty active Tropical storm/hurricane season in the Atlantic and tornadic activity is also likely to pick up in N. America also during that time so they can claim, without shred of evidence, that global warming is causing “extreme weather”.

Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
Many wonderful ways for Tom and NOAA ‘National Centres for Environmental Information (propaganda)’ to manufacture the “Hottest Month Ever”, by hundredths of a degree.

There are several airports in Greenland that are on the NWS/FAA Mesonet, and those pop up right away on the NWS Weather and Hazards Data Viewer. Was able to spot several with a few clicks, and those would be better/more easily maintained on the ground than the AWS locations. The airports and the ICAO codes: Thule AFB (BGTL), Narsarsuag (BGBW), Kulusak (BGKK), Stroemfjord (BGSF), Jacobshavn (BGJN), Godthaab (BGGH).

There must be a method to retrieve the data; the island cannot be “no data.” The truth is out there.
(Fox and Dana, we may need you again.)

you can copy and paste to Excel
first three columns is
mean, maximum, minimum
Where there is missing data in the annual data, you must click on the year and go into the individual months.
Where you find a month with the missing daily data, you can take the average for the month of the year before and the year after and fill this result in for the month that was missing. You average the 12 months to get in your annual result.

Once you have the complete graph of all results since 1941, you can do the regressions from the beginning and from various other times.

If you do it right, you could [possibly] end up with a result looking like this:

(the rate of warming in K/annum is the result of all your linear regressions, i.e. the value before the x’s)

Steven, it has come to my attention that GISS went public with the October report before Greenland and Brazil had reported their temperatures. The data will be updated when the data arrive. I hope you won’t complain about that, but the temperatures in south Greenland are not dropping.

It says nothing about whether the temperatures in southern Greenland are above normal or below normal. Temperature anomaly is used for that. The NOAA/NASA graphs show temperature anomaly. It can be very cold in Greenland this time of year. It is nearly winter there. But it can be very cold there and still be warmer than normal. That’s why temperature anomaly is used, not absolute temperature. This is all basic climate science.

gator, you can’t really cherry-pick a baseline. It doesn’t matter which baseline you use as long as when you compare two graphs, both graphs use the same baseline. The baseline in an anomaly graph just represents where the 0 value is in the data.

All baselines are cherry picked moron. What honest scientists do is try to establish as long a baseline as possible (not just the most convenient 30 years), and work with uncorrupted data, something the CAGW salesmen refuse to do.

And since you failed so misearbly the last time, let’s review some basic climate science again.

1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

I don’t know what your point is, pmc. It may well happen that when the Greenland data is reported, it will reduce the temperature anomaly. It may well be that when the Brazil data is reported, it will increase the anomaly. Apparently, NOAA decided that the result without either of those two contributions should be reported now, which is late as it is. Normally, the data for the entire world are reported shortly after the first of the month and the monthly report is ready long before it was ready this month. Apparently there was some glitch in the reporting system. Do you really believe NOAA reported without Greenland and Brazil to commit fraud as Steven claims? Despite the obvious that the data from Greenland and Brazil will eventually be reported and included? Seriously?

That isn’t the point, pmc. You are simply trying to divert the discussion. The point is that NOAA reported without the data for Greenland and Brazil because NOAA didn’t have the data for Greenland and Brazil, and the report was late. Steven’s accusation of fraud is nonsense.

I asked you once again to show me where in you silly IPCC link we can find answers to these…

1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

You wouldn’t be fibbin’, would you Marty? You can admit an honest mistake, can’t you? 😉

We’ll see, but I think there is a strong possibility that the eventual October global figre will be LOWER after the missing figures are updated, as I said earlier, after Paris.
In view of modern communications, and the importance of these figures, I wonder what the problem is with getting all data at the same time. I sometimes wonder if they are still using a runner with a cleft stick to collect the data from some locations.

Quite possible, QV, except that Brazil was left out too. I have no idea what the explanation for the late data is, but in the age of the “internet of things” most of these weather stations are not yet “things.”

The twit-o-sphere is going stratospheric in their demonization of the Chairman of the House Science Committee and Republicans asking basic questions about non sequitur end-products put out by NOAA. The Cabal of Unconcerned Anti-Science Instigators are parading their support for the criminals too…

The clime syndicate has convinced the sheep the investigators are the criminals.

Their unbelievably-gullible followers are parading that and the anti-reality graphs from NOAA, Met Office and BOM showing a neutered 1998 El Nino and climbing temperatures – all over Al Gore’s InterWeb – displaying their scientific ignorance and their unwavering support of the clime syndicate’s attempts to make the “pause” disappear. Orwell was spot on.

Actually you can not be sure if those are real people. Earlier this year there was an attack on Rush L. Hundreds and hundreds of different ‘people’ When he investigated it turns out it was only about ten people manipulating bots.

So beware of the Astro-Turf campaigns.

I stumbled over THIS. The cartoon is wonderful and the text is to (Rasmussen poll)

…..Even 56% of Democrats believe America is at war with radical Islamic terrorism, a view shared by 70% of Republicans and 54% of voters not affiliated with either major party. Looking at ideology, a big majority of conservatives (67%), and moderates (61%) believe we are at war with radical Islam, and a plurality of liberals (42% vs 39%)

A staggering 92% of all voters now regard radical Islamic terrorism as a somewhat or very serious threat to the United States. This includes 73% who say it is a Very Serious threat to America. ….

Wouldn’t it be simple to require that when adjusted data is released that the unadjusted datea be released alongside? Then the reasoning for adjustments such as TOBS, site change, funding shortfall etc. could be shown.

The guys from Iceland are TOTALLY DISGUSTED with what GISS do to Reykjavik.

They say it is TOTALLY UNJUSTIFIED.

The real problem is that this same massive change happens with ANY data that GISS get their fraudulent claws into. There are hundred of examples all over the world of blatant trend creating. Here’s just another example.

Thanks. But, why do you think I was wondering about the cycle length? I purposefully posted the longest period possible. Just in case you were wondering, my “hmmm” was because It didn’t post the graphic (only the URL).

ps. I have checked SG’s analysis on a number of times when I have had time to grab the data and do the work….., and while minor errors do occasionally get made, and corrected when noted….. in the long run he is usually substantially correct.

Andy – Bingo! I have never seen a propagandist (or any of their faithful believers) admit to anything substantial. And they always make mountains out of molehills by their critics – while ignoring the Mount Everests that are purposefully built and purveyed by their religious leaders.The hypocrisy of the clime syndicate and their apologist followers is breathtaking.

Well trying to talk to that ‘thing’ (Is it even human? Or a Bot…) is like talking to … air. So you likely won’t get a coherent reply or response that would do him justice! I on the other hand have been dealing with the likes of him, since this damn climate fraud manipulation was being promoted on youtube and I had to step in and be the voice of reason! Lots of good people just misled and buying into the massive propaganda campaign… And lots of these types trying to mislead them further, and try to prevent them from discovering, well information such as what is available on this site!

Discovered this site while pointing out the B.S. to other real individuals, we call it TTFD (thumbs the fuk down) + TRUTH BOMB 😀 [on pure propaganda / non science videos shamelessly promoting this and other crap]

So thank you Steven for creating this nice resource and keeping track for us! 😀